Prior arrests put jam in obtaining pistol permits

Michael Polito of New Fairfield recently stood before the state Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, trying to get a pistol permit, which had been denied at the local level.

"My wife and I want to have a hobby and go shooting, we have friends who go shooting," Polito told the board members.

New Fairfield First Selectman John Hodge said he denied Polito because the application asks for any arrests or convictions and Polito checked, "No," but a background check showed a driving under the influence case.

Advertisement

Hodge said he denied the application for "lack of accuracy." Hodge said he called to question Polito, asked if he'd ever been arrested, and he again said, "No." After further questioning, Polito said he had a DUI arrest, but the case was dismissed. Later, Hodge said he received documentation that showed Polito had paid a fine.

"I felt he lied three times," Hodge told the board. "Too many people don't take those two questions (about prior arrests and convictions) seriously."

When questioned by the board, Polito said he checked "no" on the application because he had forgotten about the old case, which dates back to around 1987.

"I thought it was a driving violation, not an arrest," Polito said. "I didn't think it was an arrest -- I got pulled over and fined. It was 25 years ago."

Attorney Ralph Sherman of New Britain, who represented Polito at the hearing, told the board his client went to get a copy of his record and gave it to the first selectman.

"It ended up being a violation from 25 years ago," Sherman said. "We are talking about a motor vehicle violation half his life ago."

But board members expressed doubt that anyone would forget a prior arrest.

T. William Knapp, board member and secretary, and a retired Wethersfield police chief, said he was arrested for illegal hunting in a state park in 1955, and he has never forgotten it, and he has always listed it on applications over the years.

Board member James Greer told Polito that if the permit application had been completed accurately in the first place, they wouldn't be sitting there discussing it, as Polito likely would have gotten approval.

The board ultimately upheld Hodge's decision, so Polito remains without a pistol permit.

After the hearing, Polito said, "I guess I've got to try again."

The board considered a variety of cases at its January meeting. A recurring concern among police and other local issuing authorities was about applicants not disclosing their past arrests and convictions.

While some police are upset about how often their decisions are overturned (slightly more than half the appeals over the past two years were granted), at its Jan. 24 meeting, the board sided with police or the issuing authority in all cases that came to a vote.

Howard Haughton of New London came before the board because police denied his permit application. Police told the board his application didn't disclose all his past arrests, only one narcotics arrest. Police claimed Haughton is unsuitable based on three narcotics arrests.

While Haughton countered that he had no record of violence, the board sided with police and upheld the denial of the permit.

"Three different arrests involving narcotics over a span of years is troubling," Greer said.

Another man, Donald Piombo Jr., appealed the revocation of his permit. Police claimed he lifted his shirt to show that he had a handgun to another motorist following a minor motor vehicle accident.

Piombo called it a misunderstanding, and he said the other driver may have seen his weapon when he bent over while checking the damage to his vehicle.

The board concluded that Piombo needs to mature before he carries a gun in public, and sided with police.

In another case, a woman appealed the revocation of her pistol permit. The woman told the board she had made suicidal comments after being depressed because she had lost her job. She said she is no longer depressed, but the board sided with the police, saying not enough time has passed and suicidal ideation needs to be taken seriously.

When considering a case, Knapp said the board will look at the reason the person was denied, which can range from the existence of a protective or restraining order to a conviction to one's temperament.

"It is such a wide variety of reasons," Knapp said. "It could be because you are known as a person who loses their temper. The law has varying definitions of what is 'suitable.' I have seen denials based on someone being a hothead alone."